Key result
Early invasive intervention in ACS is linked to fewer major events compared to delayed care.
Why the study?
The study was conducted to compare the outcomes of early versus delayed invasive intervention in patients with acute coronary syndrome.
Does early invasive intervention (≤24 h) reduce adverse outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome compared to delayed intervention (>24 to 72 h)?
Cohort (n=200)
No
Does early invasive intervention (≤24 h) reduce adverse outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome compared to delayed intervention (>24 to 72 h)?
p-value: p=0.001
Early invasive strategy (≤24 h) in ACS patients is associated with significantly lower rates of adverse outcomes including acute LVF, re-infarction, and death at 30 days compared to a delayed strategy.
Should not yet change ACS practice; leaves open whether early intervention improves outcomes in randomized trials.
Background: This study was to compare the outcome of early versus delayed invasive intervention in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients. Methods: A total of 200 patients with ACS underwent early intervention group (d”24 h, n=100) and delayed intervention group (>24 to 72 h, n=100) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were enrolled. The probable outcomes were a composite of re-infarction, acute LVF, recurrent ischemia, repeat revascularization, bleeding, stroke or death at 30 days. Results: Male were predominating (74%vs26%). Left anterior descending artery was the commonest infarct related artery in both groups (p=0.114). Cardiac markers, Cardiogenic shock, Acute left ventricular failure (LVF) and ventilator requirement were significantly higher (p=0.007, p=0.060, p=0.009, p=0.002) and mean duration of hospital stay was longer (p <0.001) in delayed intervention group. At 30 days follow-up improvement of chest pain, LVF and ejection fraction were achieved significantly in patient undergoing early intervention (p <0.001, p=0.016, 54.7±7.4 vs. 48.4±6.9; p <0.001). Adverse outcome like acute LVF (7% vs. 21%; p=0.004), re-infarction (0% vs. 7%; p=0.007), acute kidney injury (AKI) (5% vs. 17%; p=0.007), bleeding (11% vs. 18%; p=0.160), stroke (3% vs. 9%; p=0.074), repeat revascularization (1% vs. 7%; p=0.032), death (0% vs. 5%; p=0.030) was higher in delayed invasive intervention group (p=0.001). Conclusion: Acute LVF, ventilator requirement and duration of hospital stay were significantly predominating in delayed intervention group. Early invasive strategy in ACS patient associated with lower rates of acute LVF, acute kidney injury, re-infarction, stroke, bleeding, repeat revascularization and death compared with delayed invasive strategy at 30 days of follow-up. Cardiovasc. j. 2019; 11(2): 129-138
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shafi et al. (2019) conducted a cohort in Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS) (n=200). Early invasive intervention (≤24 h) vs. Delayed invasive intervention (>24 to 72 h) was evaluated on Composite of re-infarction, acute LVF, recurrent ischemia, repeat revascularization, bleeding, stroke or death at 30 days (p=0.001). Early invasive intervention (≤24 h) in ACS patients was associated with lower rates of adverse outcomes, including acute LVF (7% vs 21%) and death (0% vs 5%), compared to delayed intervention.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: